´óÏóAPP

If they are successful, it would leave no one to defend those laws. That would potentially allow the judge to simply declare the statutes invalid and unenforceable.

The laws in question set a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, require in-person medical exams, and prohibit the prescription of abortion pills through telemedicine.

The Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging the laws. Their lawyers say Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro and Senate President Warren Petersen waited too long before filing their bid to dismiss the challenge.

Attorneys for the challengers said the lawmakers inexcusably missed court deadlines several times.

The two GOP lawmakers were told on May 22 that the lawsuit had been filed by the center and the ACLU and were granted extensions to file their paperwork. The plaintiffs said they agreed to the extension “out of professional courtesy.� Yet it still took Montenegro and Petersen until July 7 to file their arguments about why the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Attorney Andrew Gould, representing the Republican leaders, does not dispute the timing. But he said it falls under the category of “excusable neglect.’’

Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes, who normally would be the one to defend existing state laws, has refused to do so in this case. She says the challenged statutes are no longer enforceable after voters approved Proposition 139 in November, which placed a constitutional right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution.

Montenegro and Petersen do have a legal right to defend the constitutionality of the laws, particularly with Mayes stepping aside.

But they are required to meet legal deadlines.

If the judge, Greg Como of Maricopa County Superior Court, finds they had no legitimate reason for failing to do so and that the late filings are not excusable, that would leave no one eligible to defend the challenged laws from the pending litigation.

It also would leave no one to defend statutes that now make it illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion knowing the procedure is sought based on the sex or race of the fetus, and a parallel law that imposes criminal penalties on doctors who terminate a pregnancy “knowing that the abortion is sought solely because of a generic abnormality of the child.’’

Central to the case is the breadth of Proposition 139.

Approved in November by Arizona voters by a 3-2 margin, it spells out in the Arizona Constitution that there is a “fundamental right to abortion.’’

In the case where a fetus is not yet viable — generally considered 22 to 24 weeks — it bars the state from adopting or enforcing any law or regulation that denies or interferes with that right “unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.’’

It further defines “compelling state interest’’ as one seeking to improve or maintain the health of the person seeking abortion and in a way to “not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision making.’’

There is more latitude for state regulation of post-viability abortions. But it still provides a right to abortion when a treating health care professional determines it “is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.’’

The first post-approval lawsuit successfully wiped out a 15-week limit on abortions. There was no opposition.

This litigation goes deeper into the dozens of laws already on the books that affect abortion, picking out ones that two abortion providers and the Arizona Medical Association say run afoul of the new constitutional provision.

Gould, on behalf of legislative leaders Montenegro and Petersen, argues that the Legislature had legitimate reasons for approving all of the restrictions — which predate Prop. 139 — that the lawsuit seeks to wipe out.

But, for the moment, the question is whether he will be able to make his case to Como.

The next hearing is set for Aug. 1.